I note with interest
an article
written by Realist at American Realistan critiquing my installment, "Corporate
Democracy, Corporate Democrats?." I thank "Realist"
for his comments and attention to my piece, and his linking to other articles
in the past. I apologize that this recent essay doesn't meet with his
approval. However, I would like to clarify some things that I believe
Realist has misunderstood about my essay.

First, I stated
that "'corporate democracy'" is an oxymoron. It cannot exist.
Realist took this to mean that I didn't believe that we could possibly
have a corporate democracy in the U.S. and that therefore, "corporate
sponsorship of political candidates is nothing to be concerned about."
Unfortunately, this interpretation represents a misreading. When I said
that corporate democracy is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and
thus, that it cannot exist, perhaps I should have made it manifestly clear
(for those prone to jump to false conclusions) that a "democracy"
that is "corporate" is no democracy at all. The phrase "corporate
democracy" is meaningless. That is to say, I am not arguing that
we don't have what some may call a "corporate democracy," but
that such an expression is an impossible semantic contradiction.

This clarification
should serve to defuse the other critiques leveled at me, charging me
with not knowing recent events, such as "the attempt
by Fox News to keep both Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter out of the January
6th Republican debate because of their low polling numbers." I am
aware of these and other efforts. Given the ideological variety represented
by these two candidates, Faux's decision would seem to have more to do
with political theater than ideological commitment. But the view that
Realist expresses about this kind of travesty is shared by Dr. Rec. Thus,
I am not sure what he's suggesting, or why.

I should like to
remind Realist that I never discounted the importance of corporate power.
In fact, I made it clear that these ideological gaps are simply that,
"fissures" in the power of corporate hegemony. But I also suggested
that the belief that funding sources can be necessarily and simply translated
into ideological commitments is belied by some stubborn facts, more so
in the case of Democrats, due especially to the egalitarian ideology and
rhetoric overtly avowed in those quarters. Unfortunately, many in our
quarters have slid into the kind of 'faith-based' reasoning that we critique
in our opposition. Somehow facts are just not enough and 'gut feelings'
are more reliable. Here, I am not criticizing Realist, because he has
not referred to any such "gut feeling." I am referring to other,
otherwise rational bloggers who have gotten onboard a hate train of gut
feeling which simply refuses to stop or even slow down for the facts along
the way.

Secondly, I made
it clear that I am not endorsing Hillary Clinton. (Given a chance to vote
in a primary in which Edwards is a viable candidate, I will vote for him.
As a pragmatic Democrat I don't vote my 'conscience,' per se. Rather,
I vote strategically in connection with what I believe to be the best
of possible outcomes. This allows me to avoid having my 'conscience'
dictate a voting preference that could help put an unconscionable person
in power, simply because I and others like me participated in some imaginary
purist exercise rather than acting like a pragmatic political actor. I
am not deciding on my own fate only and cannot allow some imaginary God's-eye-view
notion of righteousness determine my vote. This religious notion of 'conscience'
has no place in politics.) I was simply trying to disentangle a big and
growing, largely unsubstantiated, and rarely examined ball of rhetoric
built up into mythical proportions regarding some Democrats. Such phrases
as "corporate whore," and "corporate Democratic,"
are repeated ad nauseum and then presented as self-evident fact.
"What, haven't you got the memo that Clinton, Obama, Biden, and others
are corporate whores? Where have you been?! Don't even mention their names
without the phrase 'corporate whore' in close proximity! Otherwise you
are naïve!" I'm sorry if I have actually been weighing my words
in an attempt to accurately characterize reality, rather than simply jumping
on a rowdy band-wagon of anti-Clinton, anti-Obama, anti-Biden, anti-anything-but-more-radical-than-thou
revelers. It may be a lot harder to analyze than to add yarns to the mythical
ball of bullshit, but that is what I intend to do.

Finally, a note
on my being so-called "self-styled." If Realist is referring
to my persona, then I wonder what forces he would rather shape it. Should
I be "committee-styled," or "publishing-company-styled,"
even "corporate-styled," instead? One might think that a fiercely
independent blogger would be more accepting of "self-styled"
than any other styled persons. If he is referring to my moniker, "Dr.
Rec," then I simply must correct his presumption. That name was coined
by my students at the university where I teach, in an effort to skip the
other two syllables. Finally, what is the name "Realist," if
not "self-styled?"